Panasonic Lumix FZ60 Review

I remember some years ago lusting after a (then) new Kodak (remember them?) digicam that had a 10x zoom. Wow! I thought what photographic horizons it would conquer.

Now, you can put your mitts on a 50x zoom digicam (thanks to Canon) but, as you will quickly find out, it’s not a dream holiday with such a powerful lens, with handholding at extreme tele settings a no-no.

IMHO the 24x zoom on the FZ60 is arguably a better length for average shooting in the hands of the average and lesser-skilled photographer.

Panasonic quaintly describes the camera as one that ‘caters to the camera buyer who wants that zoom reach, but doesn’t need the bright constant aperture, and the drawbacks it brings. If you’re willing to forgo the extra light capture, it could provide a compelling option.’

Eh?

It seems the company is comparing the FZ60 with another model which had an aperture of f4.5 as opposed to the FZ60’s smaller f5.2 at the tele end. For me, there’s little sense in the comparison.

The big plus is that the 24x zoom ranges from a 35 SLR wide equivalent of 25mm to a tele equivalent of 600mm. As I’ve mentioned many times before, try and get, use and lug a 35 DSLR lens of that focal length!

And it’s a Leica-designed optic.

Panasonic Lumix FZ60 Features

The camera is set in the by now established bridge camera format: looks like an interchangeable DSLR, works like one but doesn’t allow lens switching and cannot take pictures equal in quality to a DSLR. So there!

But for many people, especially those on a foreign (or even domestic!) holiday this is the ideal single camera for the purpose: it’s relatively compact, won’t stow in your pocket but will hang quite happily on from your neck regions on a shoulder strap and few subjects, however distant, will be beyond your reach.

If you enjoyed this article, you might also like...

“Panasonic quaintly describes the camera as one that ‘caters to the camera buyer who wants that zoom reach, but doesn’t need the bright constant aperture, and the drawbacks it brings. If you’re willing to forgo the extra light capture, it could provide a compelling option.’
Eh? It seems the company is comparing the FZ60 with another model which had an aperture of f4.5 as opposed to the FZ60?s smaller f5.2 at the tele end. For me, there’s little sense in the comparison.”

No, they’re comparing it to the FZ200.

Jim Donahue

I cannot understand why this camera and its Leica partner comes without a Lens Hood.

http://shutterfly Rick

because the lens draws back into its shell when the camera is turned off, leaving no room for the hood….

http://brianmahoney.ca Brian

You say: “The camera is set in the by now established bridge camera format: looks like an interchangeable DSLR, works like one but doesn’t allow lens switching and cannot take pictures equal in quality to a DSLR. So there!”
yet later on you say: that it’s above average as a stills camera. What exactly is the difference between saying that and saying ‘cannot take pictures equal in quality’? It has the Leica lens so the images should be sharp, given enough light on the subject. What effect do the internals have on picture quality? How would a DSLR photo be better? A blanket statement like that in a review doesn’t help the reader too much because it is so broad, so all encompassing. Why exactly would a DSLR’s ‘quality’ be better than this camera’s quality?
Also, no mention at all of the viewfinder. How was it? Bright? Dim? Pixelated? Anyone who is looking at a camera like this would be keen on knowing the difference between a DSLR’s bright optical viewfinder as opposed to this one’s digital one. These bridge cameras vary significantly in the quality (usually brightness and coverage) of their viewfinders. If the author actually used the camera, wouldn’t some news on the viewfinder just pop out immediately?
Maybe you were limited in the depth of your review but this seems to me to be very superficial. People come to DPS for help but this review, at least, doesn’t offer much. I’ve been following DPS for years now, by the way.

David J

I still have an FZ 50 and love it. Not quite the zoom reach of this model and only 10.1 pix but what a great lens.
It would appear that the folks a Panasonic have fixed the fringing issue at higher ISO’s as the FZ 50 was rubbish above the 400 mark.
I was recently gifted a Nikon D 7000 by my daughter for a fast approaching 70th birthday. Can’t wait to Field test it but my old friend the Panny will be my go to camera for bird shots and probably macro.

Some older comments

David J

December 9, 2012 01:42 pm

I still have an FZ 50 and love it. Not quite the zoom reach of this model and only 10.1 pix but what a great lens.
It would appear that the folks a Panasonic have fixed the fringing issue at higher ISO's as the FZ 50 was rubbish above the 400 mark.
I was recently gifted a Nikon D 7000 by my daughter for a fast approaching 70th birthday. Can't wait to Field test it but my old friend the Panny will be my go to camera for bird shots and probably macro.

Brian

December 7, 2012 10:30 pm

You say: "The camera is set in the by now established bridge camera format: looks like an interchangeable DSLR, works like one but doesn’t allow lens switching and cannot take pictures equal in quality to a DSLR. So there!"
yet later on you say: that it's above average as a stills camera. What exactly is the difference between saying that and saying 'cannot take pictures equal in quality'? It has the Leica lens so the images should be sharp, given enough light on the subject. What effect do the internals have on picture quality? How would a DSLR photo be better? A blanket statement like that in a review doesn't help the reader too much because it is so broad, so all encompassing. Why exactly would a DSLR's 'quality' be better than this camera's quality?
Also, no mention at all of the viewfinder. How was it? Bright? Dim? Pixelated? Anyone who is looking at a camera like this would be keen on knowing the difference between a DSLR's bright optical viewfinder as opposed to this one's digital one. These bridge cameras vary significantly in the quality (usually brightness and coverage) of their viewfinders. If the author actually used the camera, wouldn't some news on the viewfinder just pop out immediately?
Maybe you were limited in the depth of your review but this seems to me to be very superficial. People come to DPS for help but this review, at least, doesn't offer much. I've been following DPS for years now, by the way.

Rick

December 7, 2012 03:10 am

because the lens draws back into its shell when the camera is turned off, leaving no room for the hood....

Jim Donahue

December 4, 2012 11:50 am

I cannot understand why this camera and its Leica partner comes without a Lens Hood.

dana

December 3, 2012 11:41 am

"Panasonic quaintly describes the camera as one that ‘caters to the camera buyer who wants that zoom reach, but doesn’t need the bright constant aperture, and the drawbacks it brings. If you’re willing to forgo the extra light capture, it could provide a compelling option.’
Eh? It seems the company is comparing the FZ60 with another model which had an aperture of f4.5 as opposed to the FZ60?s smaller f5.2 at the tele end. For me, there’s little sense in the comparison."